Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Bill Dimm writes "Apple scores a win against Samsung over a design patent. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh issued a ruling granting Apple's request for a preliminary injunction preventing Samsung from selling its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the United States. She wrote, 'Although Samsung has a right to compete, it does not have a right to compete unfairly by flooding the market with infringing products. ... While Samsung will certainly suffer lost sales from the issuance of an injunction, the hardship to Apple of having to directly compete with Samsung’s infringing products outweighs Samsung’s harm in light of the previous findings by the Court."

> you should come up with an example that doesn't> involve a company lazily duplicating 25 details of a> competitor's design.

Well, there is Windows Phone 7 and the Nokia Lumia. And while I don't personally care for either, their approach is fairly fresh and distinctive and, unlike the galaxy, does not slavishly imitate the iPhone.

Oh wait. Apple's not suing Microsoft and Nokia over WP7 and the Lumia, are they?

Well, there is Windows Phone 7 and the Nokia Lumia. And while I don't personally care for either, their approach is fairly fresh and distinctive and, unlike the galaxy, does not slavishly imitate the iPhone.

Oh wait. Apple's not suing Microsoft and Nokia over WP7 and the Lumia, are they?

Apple's patents on the look and overall design of their iPad are basically null and void. There's prior art galore and they're just imitating what scifi tv and movies have been using for decades before the first idea about an iPad lit up the empty space between the ears of the Apple designer that 'invented' it.

Well, there is Windows Phone 7 and the Nokia Lumia. And while I don't personally care for either, their approach is fairly fresh and distinctive and, unlike the galaxy, does not slavishly imitate the iPhone.

Oh wait. Apple's not suing Microsoft and Nokia over WP7 and the Lumia, are they?

Apple's patents on the look and overall design of their iPad are basically null and void. There's prior art galore and they're just imitating what scifi tv and movies have been using for decades before the first idea about an iPad lit up the empty space between the ears of the Apple designer that 'invented' it.

I'm not sure you know what design patents are. Never mind, eh?

They're not the same as a patent on a widget that has never been seen before, such as the patents that go into the 3G standard, or the patent on the original triple expansion engine. Design patents have a more general focus and are not necessarily invalidated by previous designs - in actual fact, they exist among other design patents that are very similar.

Consider Chevrolet's Corvette. They have a design patent on the design of the car. If you made a visual copy of the Corvette without their permission they could sue you. Nothing about the Corvette is "innovative" or invalidated by prior art - the car is a mature and well understood product with thousands of variations, but even so, the law protects Chevy if you try to sell a knock-off Corvette.

Apple's design patents on the iPad are not invalidated by the prior existence of tablets, and there are many, many other tablets before and since that are not the subject of lawsuits. What you can't do is make a copy of the iPad (within certain limits - that's what the lawsuit is for) without being sued. This goes right through the product line, from the way it looks to the way it is packaged (the "trade dress", which Samsung also copied uncannily). It is not just about having rounded corners, or the fact that Patrick Stewart used a prop version of a tablet on the TNG set in 1995 means no one can file design patents.

The Corvette is still covered by design patents even though there's plenty of prior art to "invalidate" the "non-innovation" that went into making what is a very common product - a sports car.

Now, if there's a unique innovation on that car (and I picked a bad example - I think the Vette still has a live axle, so even the Amish consider it obsolete technology), but let's say they innovate a new form of suspension. They *can* patent that if no one has done it before, beyond a simple design patent, and sue people who use that patented technology in another car, even if it looks nothing like the Corvette.

TL:DR; there's a difference between a design patent and a method/hardware patent.

No, this is a really bad way to setup your ideals as we need less of this attitude in the world.

Many unfair lawsuits are won, many innocent people in jail. To put it blatantly the ONLY winners in the legal system are the lawyers.

I think the real argument is the patent though.

a) if the patent was approved then why?b) won't samsung feel like idiots for not slicing/adding a few mm here or there to make their product differ a bit morec) does its shape really pose as a risk to Apple's market?

And now you're just bashing me because you think you disagree with me.

the way patient law should freakin work

s/patient/patent

You say you want to change the law - that's great - that's what is supposed to happen. What happens when someone else disagrees with whatever you manage to get it changed to? Does that make them wrong? Not necessarily.

Apple are trying to use the law, as it is currently written to maintain what they see is an advantage. People seem to attach some moral / immoral overtone to this but it's no different morally to exercising a

Well, there is Windows Phone 7 and the Nokia Lumia. And while I don't personally care for either, their approach is fairly fresh and distinctive and, unlike the galaxy, does not slavishly imitate the iPhone.

Well, Apple could have invented a design of their own, instead of copying designs from competitors and movies.

Why would the existence of a British company, founded in 1968, have any bearing on what an American company should be called in 1978? There is no requirement for your trading name to be globally unique when you pick it. I'm sure Jobs and Woz trawled the names of other companies in order to find one that suited them...

What's particularly innovative about the ipad design? Like what's so innovative that it deserves a patent? (i personally believe the ipad to be an innovative device, i just don't see what's so special about its design)

What's particularly innovative about the ipad design? Like what's so innovative that it deserves a patent? (i personally believe the ipad to be an innovative device, i just don't see what's so special about its design)

Samsung's innovation is substantial... they used to actually have innovation. But looking at their history its obvious that if it wasn't for Apple, they likely wouldn't have changed the designs of their tablets which, prior to the iPad 2010 release, were completely different:

Here is Samsung's early tablet, the 1992 Pen Master [computinghistory.org.uk]
Not too bad for 1992!

Fast forward to 2006... we have the Samsung Q1 [cnet.com]
Also, not a bad offering at the time... but, again, completely different than iPad, in 14 years Samsung's basic

But looking at their history its obvious that if it wasn't for Apple, they likely wouldn't have changed the designs of their tablets which, prior to the iPad 2010 release, were completely different:

Blah blah blah blah. You're completely avoiding the point. Just because Samsung changed their designed (I don't know if that's true, since I didn't bother to read the non-sequiteur links you posted) doesn't make the iPad an innovative shape.

Your attempt to use the powerful rhetoric of your people to persuade me or others will not help you.

I don't know if that's true, since I didn't bother to read

Obviously, you must be very well informed. Why did you even bother posting a response? You should try to avoid these kinds of compulsions.

Go read the iPad patent.

Go read the ruling, [scribd.com]... if you are able. It's unfortunate that you lack any awareness by not reading anything, but maybe if you apply yourself you'll be able to gleem some understanding of how the world actually works.

But looking at their history its obvious that if it wasn't for Apple, they likely wouldn't have changed the designs of their tablets which, prior to the iPad 2010 release, were completely different:

Blah blah blah blah. You're completely avoiding the point. Just because Samsung changed their designed (I don't know if that's true, since I didn't bother to read the non-sequiteur links you posted) doesn't make the iPad an innovative shape.

Go read the iPad patent.

They even cite the TC1100 as prior art. How on earth can the iPad be patentable with the TC1100 having existed.

It is a rectangular slab with rounded corners. It has 3 buttons on the front instead of 1 and was the thinnest and had the smallest bezel that was actually practical to make when it came out. Oh and it's grey.

So, the iPad is thinner (due to a bunch of innovations I would note that people other than Apple have petented to do with TFT, backlight battery and fabrication design), a differrent colour and slightly more featureless.

So, where's the innovation?

You don't understand what a design patent is, do you?

We'll wait while you go and find out, and why previous patents can be cited in the new filing. You might then understand why the iPad is patentable, in the same way that a Ford Mustang is patentable, even though it was not the first car.

The thing is, there's obvious differences there that there aren't between Apple's and Samsung's design.1) Both Apple's and Samsung's designs are about the same size –this is larger2) Both Apple's and Samsung's designs use rounded corners –this doesn't3) Both Apple's and Samsung's designs use a bezel about 3/4 of an inch wide – this doesn't.4) Both Apple's and Samsung's design use a aluminium backing of which a tiny bit is visible around the edge of the flat glass panel – this doesn't

Taking a quick look at this [bbcimg.co.uk] makes me realise just how insanely similar they are, and just how much apple has a point.

...apart from the way they're being carefully held so they look like they're the same size and aspect ratio and the Samsung logo appears to have been photoshopped out and the border seems to have changed color from black to silver, then, yes, they're quite similar.

"If you're going to make a statement about how IP regs are stifling innovation you should come up with an example that doesn't involve a company lazily duplicating 25 details of a competitor's design."

You're confused because those same 'design ticks' are not unique in any fucking way and are a natural expectation in most things. Would you want an iPhone with corners that stabbed you? No? That's pretty fucking obvious. Certain OS design parts might be infringing, but the PHYSICAL part is total bullshit and you fucking know it, you apologist.

Especially when they are going after HTC for things like contextual menus. "Oh that's a phone number would you like to call it?" or I see you have two browsers which would you like to open the link in and would you like it to be your default?". It's not like that shit hasn't been around fir years... oh wait.

for granting these silly patents.Whilst the system allows for this sort of shite then companies are DUTY bound to protect the interests of their shareholders over what they see as a perfectly LEGAL asset.

Apple, MicroSoft and a gazillion others are all playing the system. If you want to stop this then

Fix the frigging system.

I'd like to abolish the USPTO and start again but I have no influence as I'm not a US Citizen so what I would like to do is an irrelevance.

Sitting 3K miles away, I do get the impression of Nero fiddling whilst Rome burns as I watch this M.A.D ness going on accross the pond.

While companies need to enforce their patents to protect their IP Apple and Microsoft use them to bully others because they can't compete on their products own merits. Software patents need a much shorter expiration date. I would say a patent is invalid after 4 years (even that is too long).

It may still count as an Apple innovation. I believe the first time data detectors (i.e. things that recognise telephone numbers and so on from text and display contextual actions) appeared was the Newton. That said, the Newton was released 19 years ago, so the patents should be expiring round about now...

It may still count as an Apple innovation. I believe the first time data detectors (i.e. things that recognise telephone numbers and so on from text and display contextual actions) appeared was the Newton. That said, the Newton was released 19 years ago, so the patents should be expiring round about now...

Patents granted and now expiring aside (presuming this is the case), can we really count what is in effect a regex as "innovation"? Especially when there is nothing unobvious about it?

Well the would certainly be some use for that in the dark alleys. You just need to make sure you can get a good hold on it, even if it gets slippery during use. Some degree of waterproofing might also be a good idea for cleaning porpoises. I am looking forward seeing a commercial for that one.

This is why IP related injunctions are such bullshit in the modern economy. Patents long ago stopped protecting the small inventor and are now just used to enforce a new version of the medieval guild system. It is not possible to invent any worthwhile product or service anymore without stepping on multiple patents, many of which are legally dubious.

Even though the laws that cover both patents and design patents... are called... wait for it.... patent law?

Or even better, since you read the article, where in the judgement itself does it make this "critical" distinction?

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed onthe merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that thebalance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). In the December 2, 2011 Order, this Courtfound that Apple had established that the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 likely infringed upon theD’889 Patent, and that Apple was likely to suffer irreparable harm as a result of Samsung’sinfringing conduct.SeeDecember 2 Order at 39-50. However, the Court denied the preliminaryinjunction because the D’889 Patent was likely invalid based on several prior art references. Id. at40-45, 50.The Federal Circuit upheld the Court’s findings of infringement and irreparable harm withrespect to the D’889 Patent, but reversed the Court’s invalidity finding as to that patent

Yes, I am. If Samsung's tablet was green, this case wouldn't be happening.

Then why is it happening even though the size and aspect ratio is different? And the existence of button and branding on the front? If you're going to assert that a change like color is what the whole case hangs upon then surely you can quantify the weight of that one element to the case with regard to the others. For example what about if they changed the corner radius? And how much would they have to change it for that element of the design patent to not be considered infringing, and at that point would the lack of consideration of that part of the design patent invalidate the case as you suggest would happen with the color of the device?

Just saying: For design patents, any branding is explicitely excluded. That means, if there are two tablets that are identical except for an "Apple" or a "Samsung" logo, even if it is absolutely impossible to miss for a half blind person, are considered identical by the law.

There are a lot of what-ifs that you have, and it's quite simple: If there is enough difference for the judge to say that the Samsung tablet doesn't infringe on Apple's design tablet, then Apple doesn't have a case. On the other hand,

A "hover" is a colloquial name for a vacuum cleaner in the UK, they are made by many many companies. Once upon a time, they weren't, they were simply a brand name for one particular vacuum cleaner manufacturer, but that's not so any more.

Whoosh... Nobody in the UK has ever called a vacuum cleaner a "hover". There is, however, a company named "Hoover", making vacuum cleaners that are usually green, which is why the Hoover building on the left side of the A40 going from the west into London is lighted green in the night. Looks quite pretty.

R'd the F.A. I don't see anywhere it says that a design patent is not a patent.

OTOH, there is USPTO which disagrees with you when they say:

"A patent is an intellectual property right granted by the Government of the United States of America to an inventor “to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States” for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted.

There are three types of patents. Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.... Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. Plant patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant."

Note the three types: design, utility, and plant. Design is most assuredly a type of patent.

Then you don't know what you are talking about. Design Patents have almost nothing to do with regular patents. They are much more along the lines of Trademarks. They are very, very, very specific and almost impossible to enforce.

The reason you don't know anything about Design Patents? They almost never make it anywhere near a court, let alone a news story. It's almost impossible to violate them on purpose, let alone by accident. That rounded corners thing? That's not an 'OR' operator, it's an 'AND' operator

It doesn't matter. I understand the difference, and what you are saying, but nonetheless, it does not matter.

It is still a patent, and covered under patent law. Making the specific distinction that it is a design patent is not actually pertinent to the conversation at hand.

That poster that was trying to invalidate an argument simply because it did not make that fine distinction that you hold to be so important.

This is why IP related injunctions are such bullshit in the modern economy. Patents long ago stopped protecting the small inventor and are now just used to enforce a new version of the medieval guild system. It is not possible to invent any worthwhile product or service anymore without stepping on multiple patents, many of which are legally dubious.

What part of that does not cover both "regular" patents and design patents? That observation equally applies to both.

I disagree with providing legal protections for most elements of design patents because in this case I see quite a number of them to be functional and not purely ornamental.

Even more amazing, with your observation about the or/and operator, is that it could really infringe on all the claims at the same time. I've seen an iPad and a Tab close up at the same time. There is no way to get them confused.

In the United States, a design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item. Design patents are a type of industrial design right. Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers (see Fig. 1) and computer icons are examples of objects that are covered by design patents.

One, it's still a patent. Two, people are disagreeing with the nature of granting a patent for something incredibly obvious.

It's not really a patent. Much closer to a trademark. Design patents are what stops all the other drink companies from selling cola in those distinctive Coke bottles. Doesn't mean that Coke has a patent on glass bottles, or on bottles with rounded bits, although I'm sure variations of both those are part of the design patent. They have a specific design that is protected.

Apple does not have a patent (or even claim to have a patent) on rounded corners. They have a design patent on a specific design that happens to include rounded corners.

Is that really the argument you want to make? Is this the rally call that'll get all the IP haters out there lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks?

Fuck Yes.

There is not anything about rounded edges, thin tablets, flat displays, edge to edge display screens, etc. that are purely ornamental and deserving of protection under IP law. It's incredibly obvious, functional, and fundamental to the very idea of a tablet.

Except that Apple doesn't make and did not invent the items inside the case, they just license for early control of the manufacturing rights of parts invented by others. Samsung should just pay the money to do an early termination of parts for Apple, and watch Apple burn.

It's a patent case that is covered by patent law. Just because it is a subsection, species, flavor, or what-the-fuck-ever kind of patent does not make it wrong to refer to it as a patent case, or patent law.

Are you telling me LG is completely disinterested in getting a small part of 100B Apple has in the bank? I find it more likely that the underlying concepts were not patentable, LG botched the patent process or the patents were in fact duly licensed.

People must be blind if they can't see how much current intellectual property regulations are stifling innovation.

I'm missing the innovation? They rushed out an iPad clone. They made it close enough that the average person would be fooled into believing it's essentially the same thing. If it was innovative then there wouldn't be an issue. Even the OS looks like the iOS at first glance. I'm all for competition but they are trying to piggyback on Apple's success. It can be harmful to consumers since some are thick enough that they'll buy one then get home and find out they don't connect to iTunes and intergrate with thei

What was so "innovative" about the shape of the corners on the iPad that it needs this much legal protection?

Nothing, but patent trolling is one of the fastest growth industries in the US. In addition, it prevents newer, more agile companies disrupting established revenue streams with novel products. It's no surprise companies like Apple are joining in.

Patent trolls curb innovation and cost the U.S. $29B in 2011

A new study shows that patent lawsuits are not only costing the country billions of dollars but are also placing the burden on small and medium-size companies, which slows invention.

What was so "innovative" about the shape of the corners on the iPad that it needs this much legal protection?

Nothing. If the lawsuit had been about rounded corners then it would have been dismissed at the first hurdle. It's not about that, obviously, although the rounded corners of a particular radius are part of the design of the iPad, and thus are part of the suit. Just like the woman who burned herself on McD's super hot coffee through her own clumsiness and ill-advised driving with it between her legs didn't sue McD because they "sold coffee".

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard S.E. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her grandson's Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg). Two years of medical treatment followed.

Additionally, she only sued for $20,000 initially; $10,500 to cover current her medical expenses, anticipated medical expenses to the tune of $2,500, and an additional $5,000 for loss of income due to the amount of time she was out of work (she had third degree burns to her crotch, after all, how productive would any of us be with 3rd degree burns to our crotch?). It was only when McDonald's offered $800 and refused to budge an inch that she hired an attorney and he filed suit against them for gross negligence related to the temperature the coffee was being served at.

During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180–190 F (82–88 C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 F (60 C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 F (82 C) coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 F (71 C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false, finding that 149 F (65 C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.) Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip. However, the company's own research showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

I don't know about you guys, but I've ordered coffee at McDonald's and gotten scalded on both my mouth and hands several times, it is served ridiculously hot, much hotter than coffee I have gotten pretty much anywhere else, certainly much hotter than the coffee that comes out of my own coffeepot here at home. Did it really need to be served at such a high temperature? Probably not, becaus

It's a design patent--which is akin to trademark infringement. It's the reason someone can't make a curvy bottle that looks exactly like a Coke bottle with a wavey script red label that says "Cola Cola". Maybe Samsung should try to make tablets that can be distinguished from an iPad from ten feet away by a layman--because Samsung's lawyers couldn't make that distinction (in court) and that's why they lost (in the Euro case, at least).

They did. My dining room table has rounded edge. So did my old TV. So does my keyboard. They all predated the iPad. Apple patented "round corners on a table form factor". They weren't the first ones to think of it, just the first ones to patent it.

The fact Apple's products consistently have some of the best designs

That's not a fact, that's an opinion. Facts need to objective, that is subjective.

suggests that they are doing something innovative, non-obvious

No, no it doesn't. It could also mean they are doing progressive, iterative improvements, that may be better than the competition, but only because they have taken the next logical step in product development. Every time someone brings out a product that is a little faster, smaller, cheaper or shinier doesn't necessarily mean they've suddenly come up with an innovative new concept.

putting in some real work

Wonderful. So's the guy who collects my garbage. He doesn't get a patent on that either, even if he does it really well.

No, I quite appreciate the value of good design. The iDevices show the sort of aesthetic that a lot of tech people have been advocating for ages: simple, minimalistic. I actually have no problem with protecting distinctive designs, but the problem with a simple, minimalistic design is that it's all about removing extraneous detail. A minimalistic design doesn't make a product more distinct, it makes it more generic. And when you start protecting features of a generic design, it begins to impact large swathe

Jesus H Christ, the patent isn't just on rounded corners, you simpleton. Rounded corners _are a part_ of the design patent. One piece. There are other parts that _when all used together_ constitutes infringement. Did your dinning room table copy all the design elements of an iPad? Did your TV? No. So of course they don't infringe.

Way to read the post. I didn't suggest my table infringed. I said that it was evidence of rounded corners existing prior to the iPad, and that Apple wasn't especially innovative or distinctive in its design.

Anyone who thinks this is just about "rounded corners" is either stupid or ignorant. It's about _the entire design_ which includes, as one part, rounded corners.

Behold, Apple's design patent in all it's glory [google.com]. Tell me, of those four images that compose the entirety of that patent, which shows something more than "rectangular, round corners"?

Now, feel free to mod me troll all you want but it would be nice if everyone who's simplifying this situation to "RAWR!!! Rounded corners!! RAWR!!!" could pull their collective heads out of their asses and actually recognize that a company is blatantly and outright copying the design of a competitor who has a patent protecting that design.

It would be equally nice if the rabid Apple fanboys could pull their heads out of Steve Jobs' decaying sphincter long enoug

I'm not being deliberately obtuse. I don't like software patents, patents on living things, and basically, poor patents that are granted by complete idiots.

If a patent is worthy and serves the purpose of providing for the Public Domain, I am satisfied.

The Samsung lawyer could not tell the Galaxy from an iPad at 10 paces.

Whoa. Seriously? That's the litmus test for being able to tell the difference between two products? 10 paces. That's one hell of a strict test.

But try to wrap your brain around the point of a design patent. It's not about algorithms, operating systems, gizmos or materials. IT'S SOLEY TO PREVENT CONSUMER CONFUSION as to the origin of the product.

I perfectly understand the point of a design patent. Rounded edges, thinness, flatness, etc. should be excluded

They created a device that looks ridiculously like an iPad, because they know people love iPads.

No, they created a device that looks like an iPad because anything that does the same job will look pretty much they same. Hammers, for example, tend to have a heavy end that hits and a handle end that you hold.

The things Apple are crying about are practical and part of its functionality. Design patents cover the decorative aspects. Should everyone else have to build heptagonal tablets with bayonets sticking out of the corners?

What would be funny is "Samsung stops selling Apple parts, every single Apple product now discontinued."

And Samsung shareholders will go ballistic, literally that they're turning down sales from their #1 customer (Apple beat Sony in parts purchased from Samsung).

The other effect is a greatly distorted market - with the exception of the A4/A5 processor (though TSMC or Intel is supposed to help out), everything else is multiply-sourced. The NAND flash and RAM, especially. All that would happen is that Toshiba and the like suddenly get the orders and make money while Samsung is stuck with excess stock they have to clearance out. In fact, you'll see arbitrage happening - Toshiba etc. will see that simply relabel Samsung parts and cash in on the difference.

Also, all those multibillion dollar fabs like the one in Austin Tx that Samsung opened? Idled. And when a fab is idled, it's losing tons of money because the equipment is depreciating fast and will turn into a multibillion dollar sinkhole. Running fabs is horribly expensive and if it's not running at basically 100%, it's losing money. If nothing else, few companies can afford a fab - Apple might just pick one up on the cheap because of it.

It's a love-hate relationship that's probably giving Samsung more angst than anything because they're pitting two divisions of Samsung against each other - the semiconductor division which makes tons of money making parts for Apple versus the mobile division, which makes money (but likely less since it's spread out over more phones).

This injunction is only a bargaining chip that will be used in the settlement conference [macworld.co.uk] that Samsung and Apple have agreed to. If Samsung thought they were going to lose Apple's business over this lawsuit, the Galaxy Tab would become the next TouchPad.

No they aren't. Customers benefit from an endless system of appeals, cumbersome and byzantine laws regarding patents, trademarks and copyrights -- it saves them from having to buy a competitor's product, the poor bastards. The free market is dangerous and must be heavily regulated... unless it's labor, in which case we need as little regulation as possible because we have to remain competitive with third world sweat shops.

Everything you buy here is cheaper everywhere else, and it's because you're not working hard enough for your crumbs, Citizen.

Apple is no longer interesting. The only thing interesting about Apple is the fact that OS X has the *nix goodness under the hood.

The last thing that interested me was BeOS. Ahead of its time and DOA.

I remember having a Be box (commodity hardware with BeOS installed) at work in 2000. It rocked. I hope Haiku becomes a success, but it seems that if things are not mainstream, they die on the vine no matter how good they are.

The Galaxy Tab 10.1 is over a year old at this point and probably not selling in large volume any longer. Other competing Android tablets have already supplanted it in nearly every area and it will probably be replaced by Samsung's next offering in the near future. Unless this ruling also makes it a lot easier for Apple to get an injunction against any of Samsung's future tablet products, I can't see this making a difference at all.

I haven't read the ruling yet, but in several past cases, usually the injunction prevents Samsung from importing additional product. That would mean that inventory already in the US and in the hands of retailers could continue to be sold so long as Apple doesn't pursue legal action against retails, which they won't as many of those retailers also likely sell Apple's products. Given that Samsung will probably have a new tablet out soon, I can't see them even caring if they can't restock supplies of the Galaxy Tab 10.1.

I'd be interested in hearing the full implications from this ruling from someone more versed in the relevant laws. Is this victory as hollow as I think it is, or is there actually some value in this for Apple?

It matters because future Samsung products will be designed to not look so identical to an iPad that their own lawyers can't even tell them apart (in court they couldn't tell the difference between their own products and an iPad).

Seems the Apple reality distortion field didn't die with Jobs. What really happened is that the lawyers the judge was questioning said he couldn't tell them apart, but when the judge asked if the others could, another quickly supplied the correct answer [reuters.com]. In other words, they could tell the difference.

Koh frequently remarked on the similarity between each company's tablets. At one point during the hearing, she held one black glass tablet in each hand above her head, and asked Sullivan if she could identify which company produced which.

"Not at this distance your honor," said Sullivan, who stood at a podium roughly ten feet away.

"Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?" Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer.

But of course what really happened is rather inconvenient for Apple fans' theory that the Galaxy Tab's design must be a ripoff of the iPad, instead of taking its design cues from another Samsung product [engadget.com]. So that last sentence gets cut out from their retelling of the story, thus creating an alternate reality which better fits their predetermined view.

As for the lawyer who couldn't tell them apart, she's in her mid 50s [wikipedia.org], so probably doesn't have the best eyesight.

American judge awards American company an injunction against an overseas competitor. Again. We (the rest of the world) never saw that coming...

And yes, I know to Americans this comment is going to seem trolly but I am willing to risk karma over it because this is precisely how these cases are viewed, outside your borders. For right or wrong, we see it that the US controlled ITC and US court system are used to prop up US companies against competition.

The way I see it is that Apple must have serious concerns about the efficacy of Samsung's product to so aggressively stall any attempt for them to enter their market. Samsung really MUST be doing something right, perhaps Apple fear that the Nexus tablet is a better device?

This behavior by Apple is only reinforcing me to want to at least consider alternative products when buying a tablet.

I do too, but not out of spite, but because of the compelling endorsement seen here.

What could be a better endorsement for an Android tablet than the current market leader crying in court that this device is so much better than theirs they have to litigate rather than attempt to fight it on the merits?

Although Samsung has a right to compete, it does not have a right to compete unfairly by flooding the market with infringing products.

The question of whether they are infringing is as yet undecided.

So let Samsung continue to sell their tablets, and if the case eventually goes Apple's way[1] then increase the damages proportionally to reflect the extra "stolen" sales. I know this is a civil rather than criminal issue but it looks like punishment first, verdict second. If it goes against Apple are they going to compensate Samsung?

"United States District Court for the Northern District of California" - Wow that's going to have a impact - NOT!!!

That's a federal court. The ban is nationwide. So yes, it will have an impact--to the extent that Samsung is not already transitioning to a new product that doesn't try to look almost exactly like the iPad (10.2? 10.1 with a white border?).

Let's not forget the fact that the only pictures where the items DO look the same were doctored by Apple. (The comparison photos were not to scale, which hides the fact that the aspect ratios and dimensions of the two devices are completely different, and also I think Apple may even have done some stretching to make the aspect ratios look the same!)